Kavanaugh Knew About Ramirez Allegation Much Earlier Than He Says

During Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony last week, Orrin Hatch asked the prospective Supreme Court justice, “When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?” Kavanaugh replied, “In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.” Hatch was referring to Deborah Ramirez’s charge that Kavanaugh humiliated her by waving his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. Kavanaugh appeared to be saying he heard of the charges after they appeared in TheNew Yorker in September.

NBC reports that this, like many things Kavanaugh said in his testimony, is false. Kavanaugh’s friends gathered testimony attempting to refute Ramirez’s allegations weeks before TheNew Yorker’s story was published. Some of the witnesses were contacted by people working on Kavanaugh’s behalf as early as July, according to text messages one witness has shared with the FBI.

This demonstrates to a near-certainty that Kavanaugh knew about the incident weeks before the story came to light. It is possible he had somehow heard about false charges being circulated in advance, worked to refute them, and then misled the Senate about when he heard about them. An alternative, more direct explanation would be that he worked to refute the charge because he knew about it from having actually done what he was accused of.

There is no doubt, however, that Kavanaugh intentionally misled the Senate. In a transcribed interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, he very clearly stated that he had no advance knowledge of Ramirez’s allegations until TheNew Yorker’s story was published:

In the 9/25 transcribed interview with Senate investigators, Kavanaugh unequivocally denies knowing about the Ramirez story at any time between his college graduation and when the New Yorker story was published. https://t.co/0oX12wbi64pic.twitter.com/RLdthewsJd

On the other hand, as Charles Cooke points out, later in the interview, Kavanaugh tells the committee that he “heard” about Ramirez’s charges:

If you'd read one page further you'd see that he says he knew she was searching around ahead of time. What he didn't know was the story she eventually told The New Yorker. (1) pic.twitter.com/EX2K2PksST

This answer by Kavanaugh does not specifically state that he was aware of Ramirez’s allegations before the article came out. Kavanaugh is merely following the cue of a friendly Republican questioner, who is bringing up a party talking point that the New York Times “passed up” the Ramirez story. (In fact, it was simply unable to reach the source who spoke with The New Yorker.) Kavanaugh then proceeds to say Ramirez was shopping around recollections of the incident to classmates, but does not clarify when this information became known to him. And then, in any case, his public statement to Hatch two days later left the impression the allegations were a complete shock when they appeared in The New Yorker.

In any case, the FBI investigation is still in its early stages, it has now been freed from the shackles Trump had initially placed on it, and Kavanaugh is defending an account that does not add up.

Facebook remains very concerned about false information circulating on the platform

Facebook says it will continue to host a video of Nancy Pelosi that has been edited to give the impression that the Democratic House Speaker is drunk or unwell, in the latest incident highlighting its struggle to deal with disinformation.

The viral clip shows Pelosi – who has publicly angered Donald Trump in recent days – speaking at an event, but it has been slowed down to give the impression she is slurring her words.

Trump v Pelosi: how a ‘stable genius’ president met his match Read more

… Despite the apparently malicious intent of the video’s creator, Facebook has said it will only downgrade its visibility in users’ newsfeeds and attach a link to a third-party fact checking site pointing out that the clip is misleading. As a result, although it is less likely to be seen by accident, the doctored video will continue to rack up views.

Dating as far back as the Pentagon Papers case and beyond, journalists have been receiving and reporting on information that the government deemed classified. Wrongdoing and abuse of power were exposed. With the new indictment of Julian Assange, the government is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy and undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment. The administration has gone from denigrating journalists as “enemies of the people” to now criminalizing common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest. Meantime, government officials continue to engage in a decades-long practice of overclassifying information, often for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and a lot to do with shielding themselves from the constitutionally protected scrutiny of the press.

Rep. Chip Roy became the man who delayed $19.1 billion in disaster aid to communities throughout the country on Friday.

House leaders had planned to pass a multibillion-dollar disaster assistance measure by unanimous consent, but the Texas Republican objected on the floor.

Roy took issue with passing the measure without a roll call vote. He also complained that the legislation lacks offsets to prevent it from driving up the deficit and that congressional leaders left off billions of dollars in emergency funding President Donald Trump seeks for handling the inflow of immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Nadler reassures people that he’s ok after appearing to pass out at event

House Judiciary Chairman Nadler: “Appreciate everyone’s concern. Was very warm in the room this morning, was obviously dehydrated and felt a bit ill. Glad to receive fluids and am feeling much better. Thank you for your thoughts.”

Sen. Menendez says the Trump admin has “formally informed Congress that it is invoking an obscure provision of the Arms Export Control Act to eliminate the statutorily-required Congressional review of the sales of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others.”

Scary moment at this press conference now, @RepJerryNadler appears to be dehydrated, perhaps low sugar as the conference was underway. They are clearing the room so he can get medical assistance. He’s conscious, drinking water and has just been fed an orange

Conflicting so obviously with Roe V. Wade, the law is likely to be blocked

Planned Parenthood and the Alabama Women’s Center on Friday filed suit against the state of Alabama to block the most restrictive abortion law in the nation.

The near-total ban, signed by Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on May 15, would criminalize abortion in almost all circumstances — including cases of rape and incest — and punish doctors with up to 99 years in prison. Without any challenges, the law was set to go into effect in as soon as six months.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, sets off a chain of events that both sides say is likely to lead to a years-long court battle. State lawmakers have said they passed the law specifically to bring the case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, which they see as having the most antiabortion bench in decades. The bill was designed to challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by arguing that a fetus is a person and is therefore due full rights.

That provision said patients cannot be turned away because they are transgender, nor can they be denied coverage if they need a service that’s related to their transgender status.

The announcement follows a series of moves that bolster efforts by religious conservatives to narrowly define gender and gender protections. Earlier this month, the administration finalized rules making it easier for health workers and institutions to deny treatment to people if it would violate their religious or moral beliefs.

Prominent publishers are very worried about the Julian Assange espionage case

NYT’s Dean Baquet: “Obtaining & publishing information that the government would prefer to keep secret is vital to journalism & democracy. The new indictment is a deeply troubling step toward giving the government greater control over what Americans are allowed to know.”

Hannity has an hour-long prime time show, no editorial supervision, and the ear of the president. What could go wrong?

… Hannity, who consistently dominates the ratings across all cable news outlets, brazenly ignores … [Fox’s news standards]. And news-side employees who spoke to The Daily Beast believe it’s because no one at the network is willing to control the ratings-leading host.

A blaring example of that is Hannity’s treatment of claims from guests whose dubious “reporting” would never pass muster on Fox’s hard news shows. The most commonly cited example of this is Trump-boosting Fox News contributor Sara Carter, whose news credibility is so questionable that, as Mediaite reported in March, Fox News executives allegedly told Hannity to stop calling her an “investigative reporter” on his show.

“Fox News executives have asked Hannity to stop using this title on the grounds that Carter’s reporting is not vetted, and passes none of the network’s editorial guidelines,” the media news site reported. And even without any such dictate, Hannity’s hyping of “reporters” who don’t meet Fox’s news standards would be considered troublesome at any mainstream outlet.

Nevertheless, Hannity has persisted.

In fact, according to a review of Fox News transcripts, he has only gotten more defiant since he was reportedly scolded by executives. This year, Hannity has referred to Carter as an “investigative reporter” at least 18 times, two-thirds of which came after he was told to stop. In several of those instances, Hannity even slapped a network-wide stamp of approval on Carter, calling her a “Fox News investigative reporter.”

Mueller has told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that he is willing to make a public opening statement, but leave his testimony behind closed doors, Nadler said on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Thursday night.

Nadler, D-N.Y., has made repeated efforts for Mueller to speak in front of Congress. If Mueller did proceed with private testimony on his report, the public would get a transcript, Nadler said.

“We think it’s important for the American people to hear from him and to hear his answers to questions about the report,” Nadler said.

“He envisions himself correctly as a man of great rectitude and apolitical and he doesn’t want to participate in anything that he might regard as a political spectacle,” Nadler said about Mueller not wanting to testify in public. But he added, “I’m speculating really.”